Apparently not, because what you state below still contradicts the essence
of this point.
Perhaps I made my point badly, since what I meant was that in a truly
deterministic universe there'd be no reason for assuming
responsibility for anything, since it would all be going to happen
the way it would and what would seem to be decisions which one were
making would all really just be illusions since we'd merely be
automatons.
Yes. That point is well understood.
The issue is that randomness doesn't save one from absence of free will.
---
---
Randomness is prohibited by determinism, since it preaches that every
action is preordained, so the only way we can exercise free will is if
randomness exists.
---
My argument (
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html) is
based on analysing both conditions. Clearly, there is both classical and
quantum approximations acting simultaneously in any situation. Part of a
decision is essentially, predetermined, part is random. *Either* way
prohibits free will, by definition of free will.
---
Randomness is prohibited by determinism, since it preaches that every
action is preordained, so the only way we can exercise free will is if
randomness exists.
Ergo, if you admit that randomness exists then you must accept that
determinism doesn't.
Not at all.
In QM, one can have the probability of a specific event occurring being 0 or
1. Not everything under QM must be random. It depends on the exact nature of
the problem. For example, a measurement of the spin of one electron, can
give a certainty of the spin of another electron.
So. Both randomness and determinism co-exist, according to standard physics.
Then, if you accept that determinism doesn't
exist it follows that free will, which is random, must.
No. That logic makes no sense.
I already explained in that paper. You appear to be saying that if grass is
green, then all that is green is grass.
Free will, essentially by definition, is the ability of an object, an "I" to
make a decision that "I" wants. The fact that an aspect of free will is non
predictability i.e. not determinism, does *not* imply that it must be
random. Free will is the ability to chose for oneself. If the choice is
random, than there is no choice. This is trivially obvious.
Ohh dear...why is this so hard for people to understand. I will a note here
though, is that, when I reasoned this out, it was on my todd, only later did
I discover that exactly the same argument I use against free will, is
already well known and accepted by major philosophers, e.g David Chalmers.
Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
